大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 32.24

32.24

疏「諸情根者通於八識類非一故」者，八識皆有根義，已成非一，況就八中復有二類：前五依色、後三依心。三依心中復有單雙互依之異，若具說者復有多少不同。故《唯識》第四云「諸心心所皆有三依：一因緣依，謂自種子諸有為法皆託此依，離自因緣必不生故。二增上緣依，謂內六處諸心心所皆託此依，離俱有根必不轉故。三等無間依，謂緣前滅意諸心心所皆託此依，離開導根必不起故。」釋曰：根識同時名俱有也。前滅識等猶能開避導引後生，名開導也。然此三依，言生、轉、起，別相云何？生約依種辦體而生，轉約隨順與力令轉，起約由前開路令後得起。然其八識說俱有依，四師不同，今但用第四護法。護法廣破前義，故《唯識》結云「由此五識俱有所依定有四種，謂五色根、六七八識，隨闕一種必不轉故，同境、分別、染淨、根本所依別故。」釋曰：同境即五色根，根識共同緣一境故。分別是第六，分別差別故。染淨是第七，依此能起染淨識等故。根本是第八，若離第八餘不立故。論曰「聖教唯說依五根者，以不共故。又必同境，近相順故。」釋曰：此會違也。謂《對法》第一但言眼識依色根。會云不共者，眼根但為眼識依故，非餘識依，餘四亦然。六七八識通餘識依。又必同境者，根必與識同緣境故。又近相順者，六七等識即是遠，是故五識定有四依。論曰「第六意識俱有所依唯有二種，謂七八識，隨闕一種必不轉故。雖五識俱取境明了，而不定有，故非所依。聖教唯說依第七者，染淨依故。同轉識攝，近相順故。」釋曰：論中有三，初正明。次雖五識下通外問。謂有問云：意識得五緣境明了，何不亦用五識為依？故答云：不定有故，意識不得五識之時能獨緣故。後聖教唯說依第七下，會通餘教，亦是《對法》。通亦有三：初明是彼染淨根故，二者六七同是轉識故，三多引意識起染污執，故名相順。論第七意識俱有所依但有一種，謂第八識藏識；若無，定不轉。故如伽陀說「阿賴耶為依，故有末那轉。依止心及意，餘轉識得生。阿賴耶識俱有所依亦唯一種，謂第七識；依識若無，定不轉故。論說藏識恒與末那俱時轉故。又說藏識恒依染污，此即末那。」釋曰：上引伽陀，即《楞伽經》；上引論，即《瑜伽論》。然上所引，《唯識》說識差別不同，故今疏云「種類非一」。而順諸聖教從多而說，故於五中取不共依，六取染污，故各舉其一。餘義含在類非一中，及次疏文重明七八二識中攝。既七為染污根，則與前六為染淨依。八為通依，即與前七為根本依矣。言「染污根」者，第四論云「此意任運恒緣藏識，與四根本煩惱相應。其四者何？謂我癡、我見，并我慢、我愛、是名四種。我癡者，謂即無明。愚於我相，迷無我理，故名我癡。我見者，謂我執，於非我法妄計為我，故名我見。我慢者，謂踞傲，恃所執我令心高舉，故名我慢。我愛者，謂我貪，於所執我深生耽著，故名我愛。并我慢愛，有見慢俱，遮餘部師不相應義。」彼疏釋云「餘部即薩婆多，見愛慢三不得俱起故。論云此四常起擾濁內心，令外轉識恒成雜染，有情由此生死輪迴，不能出離故名煩惱。」釋曰：即由四惑常俱等故，名染污根。下論文中往往皆詺為染污意。

Regarding the commentary's statement, "The sensory faculties apply across the eight consciousnesses, and their kinds are not singular": that all eight consciousnesses have the sense of being faculties is already established as not singular, let alone that among the eight there are further two classes: the first five rely on form, and the latter three rely on mind. Among the three that rely on mind, there are further differences of relying singularly or mutually relying in pairs; if fully stated, there are further differences in number. Thus, the fourth fascicle of the Weishi [lun] says: "All minds and mental factors have three reliances: First, reliance on causes and conditions, meaning that all conditioned dharmas rely on their own seeds, for separated from their own causes and conditions, they definitely do not arise. Second, reliance on sovereign conditions, meaning that all minds and mental factors of the internal six bases rely on this, for separated from simultaneous faculties, they definitely do not operate. Third, reliance on equal and immediate conditions, meaning that all minds and mental factors taking the immediately ceased thought as object rely on this, for separated from the opening and guiding faculty, they definitely do not arise." The explanation is: Faculty and consciousness being simultaneous is called "simultaneous." The preceding ceased consciousness and so forth can still yield and guide the subsequent arising, which is called "opening and guiding." But among these three reliances, what are the distinct characteristics of the terms "arising" (生), "operating" (轉), and "starting up" (起)? Arising is stated in terms of relying on seeds to produce the substance and arise; operating is stated in terms of according with and imparting power to cause to operate; starting up is stated in terms of opening the path from before so that the subsequent can be raised. But regarding the simultaneous reliance of the eight consciousnesses, four masters differ; here we only employ the fourth, Dharmapāla. Dharmapāla extensively refuted the previous views; hence the Weishi [lun] concludes: "Due to this, the simultaneous reliances of the five consciousnesses are definitely of four kinds: the five material faculties, and the sixth, seventh, and eighth consciousnesses; for if any one is lacking, they definitely do not operate, because the shared-object, discriminating, defiled-pure, and fundamental reliances are distinct." The explanation is: The shared-object is the five material faculties, because faculty and consciousness mutually cognize the same object. Discriminating is the sixth, because it discriminates distinctions. Defiled-pure is the seventh, because based on this, defiled and pure consciousnesses and so forth can arise. Fundamental is the eighth, because if separated from the eighth, the others are not established. The treatise says: "The sacred teachings say they rely only on the five faculties because they are unshared; furthermore, they must share the object, being proximately compliant." The explanation is: This harmonizes a contradiction. That is, the first fascicle of the Abhidharma[-samuccaya-vyākhyā] says only that the eye-consciousness relies on the material faculty. Harmonizing this by "unshared" means that the eye faculty is only the reliance for the eye-consciousness, not the reliance for the other consciousnesses, and so too for the other four. The sixth, seventh, and eighth consciousnesses serve generally as reliances for the other consciousnesses. Moreover, "must share the object" means that the faculty must cognize the object together with the consciousness. Furthermore, "proximately compliant" means that the sixth, seventh, and other consciousnesses are distant; therefore, the five consciousnesses definitely have four reliances. The treatise says: "The simultaneous reliances of the sixth mental consciousness are of only two kinds: the seventh and eighth consciousnesses, for if any one is lacking, it definitely does not operate. Although it apprehends objects clearly together with the five consciousnesses, they are not definitely present, hence they are not reliances. The sacred teachings say it relies only on the seventh because it is the defiled-pure reliance, belongs to the category of evolving consciousnesses, and is proximately compliant." The explanation is: In the treatise there are three parts: First, it directly clarifies. Next, from "Although together with the five consciousnesses" downward, it resolves an outside objection. That is, someone asks: The mental consciousness apprehends objects clearly with the five [consciousnesses]; why does it not also take the five consciousnesses as reliances? Therefore it answers: Because they are not definitely present, for when the mental consciousness does not obtain the five consciousnesses, it can cognize independently. Lastly, from "The sacred teachings say it relies only on the seventh" downward, it harmonizes with other teachings, which is also the Abhidharma. The harmonization also has three points: First, it clarifies that it is its defiled-pure faculty; second, the sixth and seventh are both evolving consciousnesses; third, it predominantly induces the mental consciousness to give rise to defiled attachments, hence it is called "compliant." The treatise says: "The simultaneous reliance of the seventh mental consciousness is of only one kind, namely the eighth storehouse consciousness; if this is absent, it definitely does not operate. As the gāthā says: 'With the ālaya as reliance, manas therefore operates; relying on citta and manas, the other evolving consciousnesses can arise.' The simultaneous reliance of the ālaya consciousness is also of only one kind, namely the seventh consciousness; for if the supporting consciousness is absent, it definitely does not operate. The treatise says that the storehouse consciousness constantly operates simultaneously with manas. Furthermore, it says that the storehouse consciousness constantly relies on the defiled, which is this manas." The explanation is: The gāthā cited above is from the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra; the treatise cited above is the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra. Now, as cited above, the Weishi explains the distinctions of consciousnesses differently; hence the present commentary says, "their kinds are not singular." Yet, in accordance with the various sacred teachings, it speaks in terms of the predominant: thus, among the five, it takes the unshared reliance; for the sixth, it takes the defiled; and so it mentions one for each. The other meanings are implicit within "their kinds are not singular," and are subsumed in the subsequent commentary text that re-clarifies the seventh and eighth consciousnesses. Since the seventh is the defiled faculty, it serves as the defiled-pure reliance for the preceding six. As the eighth is the universal reliance, it serves as the fundamental reliance for the preceding seven. As for "defiled faculty": the fourth fascicle of the treatise says: "This thought spontaneously and constantly takes the storehouse consciousness as object, and is associated with four fundamental afflictions. What are the four? They are self-delusion, self-view, together with self-pride and self-love; these are named the four kinds. Self-delusion means avidyā: being ignorant of the characteristics of a self and deluded about the principle of non-self, it is called self-delusion. Self-view means grasping at a self: falsely calculating non-self dharmas to be a self, it is called self-view. Self-pride means arrogance: relying on the grasped self to cause the mind to be haughty, it is called self-pride. Self-love means self-greed: generating deep attachment to the grasped self, it is called self-love. 'Together with self-pride and love' means that view, pride, and love occur together, refuting the non-association doctrine of other schools." That commentary explains: "Other schools refers to the Sarvāstivādins, because [for them] view, love, and pride cannot arise together. The treatise says that these four constantly arise to agitate and turbid the inner mind, causing the external evolving consciousnesses to constantly become contaminated; sentient beings, due to this, transmogrify in the cycle of birth and death and cannot escape, hence they are called afflictions." The explanation is: Exactly because the four afflictions are constantly concomitant and so forth, it is called the defiled faculty. In the treatise text below, it is frequently named the defiled manas.